Planning & Zoning Committee - Regular Meeting

Um, so I want to start off by uh introducing myself. I'm Daryl O' Quinn. Um, and want to just kind of give you an update on um the planning and zoning committee. So the council uh every you know quadranium uh or each time we uh have a council president prom election the council president um is the person who uh determines the the ad hoc committee. So, uh, in the mayor council act, there's there's really only one standing committee, the committee of the whole. Um, public safety, planning and zoning, transportation, infrastructure, all of the others are ad hoc committees. Um so when councelor Alexander uh became president um it was her decision to um kind of revamp the way we do some of our committees and so planning and zoning was one of the committees that's uh was changed up. So other committees have a single chairperson. Um however in this case councelor Vasa and myself are going to be co-chairs. So um planning and zoning committee meets every other week uh second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. and uh councelor Vosa and I are going to switch off um each uh meeting and to to lead the meeting. So, you know, having one person presiding, you know, helps um keep things efficient. So, just wanted to to

give you that background so you understand um what's going on. and and also planning and zoning committee was um previously a three-member committee. It's now a four member committee. Um obviously myself and councelor Vasa uh and councelor Woods and councelor Smith are the official members of the council committee meeting. You'll also uh occasionally see other counselors um attending you know these committee meetings. Um you know any of the counselors are are free to attend. Um it's just the the the committee members uh who will be you know voting on the recommendations. So in any case we'll get forward get started with the meeting. Our first um item of business is to consider the minutes of the Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025 meeting. And um I guess I'm the only person present who was probably there, but if if there's uh no additions or corrections to the meeting minutes, we'll consider a motion to approve. I'll move to approve the September 10th minutes.

October 22nd. Oh. Yeah. Correction. I move to approve the October 22nd. All right. I'll second that. All in favor say I.

I. Okay. So, the minutes are approved. So, uh we'll move on to our zoning cases. Um, and I did want to uh let members of the audience know that one of the cases on our agenda today, ZAC 2025 00023. Um this is the request to change uh from D3 to um light industrial or light manufacturing district. Um that case is being deferred to the January 13th meeting. So if you were here for that case, uh we will not be hearing that case today. again ZAC 2025-23 we won't be discussing that case today so uh first case that we will be talking about is ZAC 2025 00000016 and so if we could have staff give us a review of that

okay so for the record. I'm Christian Tomus and I serve as one of the planners here for the city of Birmingham. Now, this item was heard at the last October 8th PNZ meeting to which I can provide an update since that meeting or I can go over the whole case, whichever you all prefer. Yeah, let's start from there. Okay. Yeah.

All right. So, applicant is Abdo Amir and the owner is Maflahi Sadi. So, they're seeking to reszone the property from QC2, which is our qualified general commercial district, to C2, which is our general commercial district, in order to remove the Q conditions from a previously approved reszoning case, which is Z4089, in order to allow a motorcycle training facility. Now, the Q conditions from that 1989 resoning allowed the following uses only: a restaurant, a motel, and a truck stop. Now, the property is approximately 2.75 acres in size and is located at 1700 31st Avenue North and 1701 32nd Avenue North, which is just west of I65 off the 32nd uh Avenue North exit. The surrounding zoning is D3 single family and C2 general commercial to the north and D3 single family to the east south and then D3 and QD5 which is our qualified multiple dwelling district to the west. So a little bit about the applicant's proposal. The motorcycle training facility provides a safe controlled environment for skilled development, safety education and advanced riding techniques. The course will have designated training areas to provide riders with defensive driving, emergency braking and maneuvers and low-speed control, all while providing real world traffic simulation. Their courses are held both in the classroom and outdoors and is available on select weekdays and weekends led by certified motorcycle trainers. Pro Rider Birmingham has established a scholarship program for students living within the Asipco Finley neighborhood. The hours of operations will be Tuesday to Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm and there will be four employees of which they are the instructors. And additionally, the applicant plans to coordinate and host food trucks on site for special events and will be open to the public. So the

adopted long-range land use plan identifies this property as general commercial. Now I'm going to go through the staff comments. So from zoning due due to the excess of nine parking spaces, the applicant must incorporate loan impact development or pursue a variance through the zoning board of adjustment. Additionally, if approved, the applicant must pursue a special exception through the zoning board of adjustment for the proposed use in a C2 district. From landscape, a type C landscape buffer is required anywhere that the C2 abuts the D3 single family residential zoning. and there's going to be one tree per 40 feet of of street frontage on all four sides is required. Now, if those landscaping requirements can't be met, a waiver can be applied for or the applicant can pursue also another variance through the zoning board adjustment. We received no comments from storm water. The property is not located within a special flood hazard area and there were no comments from Birmingham department of transportation. Now, I'm going to go through the neighborhood recommendation. So, the applicant went before the Asipco Finley neighborhood on June 4th and they voted 17 votes to support, three votes to not support. The item was heard at the zoning advisory committee on July 15th and they voted to approve and afford the request to the planning and zoning with five votes to approve, zero votes to deny. And since the last planning and zoning committee, like I mentioned, they came before the October 8th meeting and they voted to send the applicant back to the designated neighborhood association to provide a proper uh presentation and that was three votes to approve. Um so since that neighborhood meeting, um the Asipco neighborhood did not meet in November or December. So staff stated that instead of making the applicant wait 3 months until January that the neighborhood would send would forward the item with no recommendation. So that's where we're at right now and

that's the conclusion of the report. Okay. So the basically what you're saying is is that the planning and zoning committee um asked the applicant to go back to the neighborhood and since they weren't meeting they he didn't have the opportunity to do that. Correct. Yeah. Or else he would have had to wait until January. Yeah. Okay. Just ask your question. Yeah. Uh why do you know why this got sent back to the neighborhood?

Um I'd probably defer that to the applicant or someone from the neighborhood who was actually at that meeting. So based on uh hearing this previously in planning and zoning committee. Um it's my understanding that you know there were some issues with the meeting location. Um it's a a SIPCO pipe facility where the neighborhood meets and um

the neighborhood didn't have permission to use the AV equipment in that facility. So um the applicant you know had brought his presentation in the form of like a PowerPoint you know uh and he wasn't able to do that. So, uh, the committee, you know, after hearing that wanted to, um, create an opportunity where the applicant, you know, could provide all the materials and visuals and everything, um, to the neighborhood, but obviously that didn't happen. So, uh, we're kind of back where we started.

Uh, I guess for clarity, This is the same neighborhood that voted to approve it. Correct. Yes. Back on the June 4th.

Uh I guess I think the president's here at the appropriate time if we could get some more context.

Right. Um, so is the neighborhood officer here? Yeah. Can somebody from the neighborhood, you know, provide us some background? Turn on your mic, please.

All right, let's start over. Good afternoon. My name is Anna Brown. I'm chair of North Birmingham uh framework committee. And the issue is when we came in October, there was still some questions asked about the presentation and he was asked to go back to the neighborhood meeting. Now in November and December is usually the meetings that a SIPCO Finley do not have during the holidays. That's been normal for a few years. The next meeting will be held on January the 7th. which is the first Wednesday in January and that would be the next meeting that he can go to but that is something that has been done in previous years there with that neighborhood association. So uh it was not to hold anything up. I mean we were told that that was possibly what was thought but that was not the thought process because this is something that has been done for years. We find during the holiday months the attendance are very low. So rather than

sure scheduling a meeting uh they just wait until January. So, Miss Brown, um I'm It's been a couple of months since we heard this the first time and um you know, according to the um the summary we have before us, the neighborhood did um consider this back in June

of this year, and there was a a vote that occurred with 17 votes to approve and three votes to deny. Um, however, when I I remember when it came to the planning and zoning committee, there was some discussion around that. Can you provide some context?

Yes, the discussion around that, it did have a vote of 17 to three, but also the problem was there was some discussion about some of the people who were there at the neighborhood meeting that voted. But at the planning and zoning committee when we came here, the biggest issue was the fact that you have senior citizens living um when you look at that block, the east uh eastern border is bound by I65. Your north and your south border is residential homes with senior citizens there. Your western side is right next door to the First Baptist Church of Sipco Finley. So, uh, some of the things that he mentioned in ZAC meeting that came up in the planning and zoning meeting, which, uh, was noted by Christian was when you're talking about putting food trucks there on Saturdays, okay? Or whatever days he want to have done, that's a residential area and that's a church there. And uh they have a lot of services sometime on Saturdays, namely funerals and stuff like that that are there on Saturdays. Um I know he told counselor Abbott, motorcycles don't make that much noise. Okay? You don't have to be riding fast on a motorcycle. Harley's are designed to be loud. That's their trademark. So even when you crank it up, it's going to be loud. And when you got senior citizens there, that is part of the issue there, that they should not be subjected to that because that block of property was supposed to be zoned residential cuz the intention was for the community. When Egan school was torn down, it was to build houses to repopulate the community. But somehow or another they put it as a first they said it was industrial then they're saying it's

commercial but it was supposed to be residential because that was the plan to for it until we started putting the businesses there. The other argument that we had was about removing the queue conditions because you open that property up to too many other things that could come there along with this item that's not wanted. You can get other things that are not wanted there. So that was the objection to it.

Okay. Yeah. So I don't guess we I mean I know usually these uh there's just a sheet that's sent from the neighborhood that records the vote. Um, does the the neighborhood officer also send in like the sign-in sheet from the meeting um with those records? No. So, generally they just send us the voting form.

Okay. All right. So, the neighborhoods take according to you is is that there were some people who showed up who you guys weren't sure were actually neighborhood.

Yeah. had an issue with that for a couple of months because you had two uh votes that were taking place that a lot of people a lot of younger people wanted a lot of people that live close by didn't. So uh at one meeting they had to have someone from city hall to come in to make sure that the residents that voted were actually living in the neighborhood. So there's been some issue with that on several occasions and we're about ready to get them solved in the community there because it is a problem. But January they will be back for their first meeting of the year.

Okay. Um you got a question. Council Woods is that I don't see the applicant. All right. Okay. There you are. I'm sorry. I don't recognize you. Um Um So you guys want to hear from the applicant? I mean, we can um since most of you guys are new to the case, he can talk about what he's intending to to do with the property. So, yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I don't remember your name. Uh it's in here, though. Yes.

Yeah. Hey everybody, my name is Abdul Amamir. Yeah. So, give us uh a summary of what you would like to do with the property.

All right. So, starting from the very beginning, um I approached uh Mr. Maflahi about the property. Um I don't I guess he didn't he wasn't sure about the conditions or the conditions himself when he uh when he said that um that I would be uh I would be okay to start my business there. So I um I started my lease February 1st of last year. Um, it wasn't until I got here to city hall where I found out that I couldn't get a business license because of the conditions. So, I've been paying $3,000 a month for that property since February. Um, when I was advised of what I needed to do, uh, I immediately started reaching out to the ASIP code president. Um, I was I was told that um they were not interested in my business being in the neighborhood and I would not be put on the agenda. And it wasn't until I came to city hall and found Miss Williams who was over the neighborhood presidents. They had to call her and get me put on they had to instruct her to put me on the agenda to be heard. Um, I went to the ACIPCO meeting. Um, I had already been to one Asipco meeting. Um, the one that they refused to put me on the agenda for and I waited to the very end when they had a minute and I asked if I could speak to the neighborhood and reluctantly they let me have two minutes where I handed out

flyers and introduced myself. Um during that meeting I watched the Red Cross and uh another representative from the city who was running for an office uh utilize the audiovisisual equipment and give their spiel for about 10 or 15 minutes. It never crossed my mind that I needed to ask permission to use a sipco property. So when I showed up early, when I was on the agenda, I immediately walked in. I was met by the sergeant-at-arms, I introduced him uh myself again. He said that he remembered me. And I told him, I said, "Well, I'm ready to do my presentation. Can I set up my laptop and hook up right here?" He said, "Absolutely." So I was given permission by the Asipco neighborhoods sergeant-at-arms to hook to the Asipco equipment. When it was my turn to give the presentation, I walked to the podium. I moved the cursor on my laptop and all the screens lit up with the beginning of my presentation. I was immediately told to disconnect my laptop because I didn't have permission. It I mean I I I've already hooked to it. I wasn't going to do anything other than use the prompter to give the Asipco neighborhood the proper presentation that they needed. When I was told to disconnect it, I went through a presentation from memory for the next 10 minutes and they were very receptive. Very receptive. Uh long after it was my time on the floor, I had people coming up to me um questions. They were want they were we were exchanging phone numbers. Very

receptive. They put it to a vote 17 yay. And they said, and when everybody was standing up and voting, the sergeant-at-arms and another gentleman, I don't know if he held an office, but they were literally walking around and saying, you know, no, you're you're not you're not in the neighborhood. You have a business here, but you don't live here. Please sit down. You don't get to vote. They went through the entire audience to make sure that nobody voted that wasn't supposed to be there. when everybody came in in the beginning of the evening and they filled out the roster with the sergeant-at-arms, nobody nobody was allowed to put an address that wasn't on their driver's license in the meeting. So, everybody that voted was from the neighborhood and I got 17 yays. And they said, "Any naysay?" And it was silent. It was absolutely silent. And they said, "So, nobody's opposed." And they said, "Well, somebody's got to be opposed." And someone from the audience said, "No, just put a zero." And they said, "No, we're not sending up a zero." And that's how you got the three nays that went against. It was going to be an absolute unanimous from the neighborhood. I took um I came up here and obviously you guys know how that went. And at the last meeting, they sent me back because I wasn't able to give what they call a proper presentation. Okay, for those that don't know, Proriter Birmingham seeks to conduct advanced motorcycle training that will improve uh safety and liability on the roadway. That's all it is.

If you hear people speaking about proriter in a in a in negative context, it is because they're speaking out of uh from personal opinion and they have not seen what we do. After I was after I was sent back to the meeting, told that I had to go back to a SIPCO and give them a proper presentation once again, I paid almost $2,000 for a professional videographer to come out and he spent three hours on my parking lot and I brought multiple motorcycles out there just so that I would have proper documentation to show the Asipco neighborhood that When these motorcycles are operating at a low speed, one motorcycle at a time, it is not loud. It is not a nuisance. And the videographer was was doing uh a lot of what he does from directly across the street at the houses where people are supposed to be, you know, um bothered by the engine noise of these loud Harley-Davidsons. And when when when I play the video, you can tell it's not what they what they expect it is. You can go to proritiderbirmingham.com. We've got videos on the website where you have one motorcycle that's doing less than five miles an hour, you know, under, you know, under controlled speed and you can barely hear the motorcycle. You can barely hear it idle. But everybody thinks that if the Q considerations are changed and proriter is allowed to open up this business that all of a sudden some outlaw motorcycle club and hundreds of motorcycles are going to come in and nobody's going to

get any rest. I have already told the I when I was at the Asipco neighborhood, their biggest concern was Sundays during church service. And I told them that if they would give proriter Birmingham a shot, they would never see any motorcycles training on Sunday on that property. Period. Not even private parties. Nothing. Nothing would happen on that p on that property on Sunday. and the neighborhood was satisfied. Where where's the video on your website?

You should be able to go to the main page. Um you should be able to go to the main page and scroll all the way to the bottom. Okay. We have uh we've uh uploaded PDF files where um folks that want to learn how to do these things at Yeah. at low speed. Where is it? They can create the patterns themselves. Oh, okay. Got it.

But we've also got we also have videos to show them what it should look like if it's done properly. Yeah, my question I just wanted to I was trying to get some clarity on that process because like you said, we we have a system in place for neighborhoods to to hear uh from business owners and then take a vote. And so I just wanted to make sure that that that vote was proper, which sounds like it was. Do we have anything from community development to indicate that the vote was not proper?

Okay. Um Okay. So, uh, I'm watching the video. Sorry. Um, so this looks pretty similar to the type of training that a mounted patrol officer um might, you know, be required to do. Um, I mean, give me some context. Is that what you guys are doing?

Yes, sir. Prorider is uh is an advanced motorcycle school. So if you uh if you've never ridden a motorcycle before and you're just you're just trying to figure it out, this is not for you. Um they offer uh the Motorcycle Safety Foundation down in University of Montabalo offers the the training for brand new riders. Um but this is this is advanced level. This is people that have have had thousands of hours in the saddle, but now they want to they want to get better. We're instead of pulling into a parking lot and putting your feet down and what we call duck walking around the parking lot with your motorcycle, you keep your feet on the floorboards. The the motorcycle is under power all the time. Clutch throttle braking. Everything's very controlled. I have people that reach out to us all the time and they're like, I I've been riding a motorcycle for years, but I want to ride like a motorcycle officer. I want complete complete and total control of my motorcycle, and I want that confidence, and that's what we provide.

Okay. So, um, Mr. Uh the case that's before us today is to lift the cube conditions. Is that correct? So what are what I'm looking at this what are the cube conditions on the property right now? So it only allows a restaurant, a motel, and a truck stop.

So it's it's otherwise zone commercial. So anything that's allowed by right in C2 would be allowed with it's uh with lifting the Q conditions but I think the proposal today is not to necessarily lift a Q conditions to add a trade school as one of the allowed uses. No. So it is to remove all the Q conditions and just leave it as a G like a base C2 with no Q's on it.

Right. But I saw something in here about a trade school. So is that something that So a trade school that's the closest definition that we have to what he is proposing. So that's the use that we use. So we haven't added that as a Q condition. it's just to remove them all to be allowed to use that use at that at this site under a C2. Now, he would also have to get a a a special exception through the zoning board of adjustment if that C2 is eventually approved for a trade school use.

Okay. So, the zoning board adjustment has to make that call.

Correct. So, if he's approved, he would have to get a special exception. Okay, now I'm really confused. So, why are you guys asking us to remove all the cute conditions? if he can get just go to the zoning board adjustments and ask the Z8B to allow him the special exception for a trade school, you know, we have to you're since trade school is not in one of the, you know, allowed uses currently. So, do we even need to lift the Q conditions? That's what I'm asking.

Yes, because trade school is not one of those three. So, he'd have to he'd have to and it's not one of the allowed uses for C2 either. Correct. For C2, it is it's it's permitted with special exception. Okay. So you have to remove those to have that use allowed and then get the approval through this special exception. Okay, got it. Okay. Um, other questions for the applicants? Council Woods,

uh, question for staff. Um, if you go a little deeper into the the absolute need to remove all Q conditions before they can request the exception from ZBA.

Uh, I don't it's not absolutely necessary. I think that might have been the request of the applicant. Be honest, I'm not sure. Um, but yeah, I think what's before you is to remove the current cues that are on the case. And basically that queue just allows for three uses. Restaurant, motel, truck stop. At present, if you want to develop on that site, it has to be one of those three uses. I believe, I may be wrong about this, maybe the applicant can correct me, um that that was his request to remove the cues.

Yeah, but I mean, he wouldn't know um the best path forward. I wouldn't think. Um, so basically he just needs like council Quinn say he just needs to go to ZBA because nothing we're doing here today gets him any closer to he's not going to be able to go to ZBA unless the council finds in his favor to remove the cues or add his use. One of those two things has to happen otherwise he won't be able to go to ZBA. What category would his use fall under? I think we've identified the trade school. Oh, so we have the ability to just add that use.

Well, the trade school is an allowed use by special exception in C2. So, how do we do that? Uh, Tim, um, since it's not one of the Well, like say I'm not allowed by how how was the application made? Was the application made to just remove the cues? Yes. Yeah. So to me that would be up to the applicant you know to decide you know do you want to pursue removing all the cues and then you know uh attempting to receive your ZBA approval or would you allow would you amend your application to just ask to amend the cues to add trade school as a permitted use?

Uh to me that's up to the applicant to decide. Mr. You don't currently own the property. Are you are you trying to purchase it from the owner? I am not. The own I have been guided by everybody from the start. I don't and I know that the Asipco Finley neighborhood is worried about like removing the Q considerations and all that and that I wasn't driving that train at all. I just want the trade school. That's we're going to get there. So now my question is is since Mr. Palmer is not the property owner. Is a leasey of the property uh allowed to well have a reasonzoning request?

I'm imagining that he was he submitted a letter. Yeah, we do have a permission. Yeah, he has a letter of permission from the owner. Okay. So, the owner's consenting to the zoning change. I I believe that's true. Okay. All right. Uh so I mean in my mind the most expedient path forward is going to be to amend the application and it be resolved here would not need to go to ZBA or you still I mean basically on what you're telling me he still needs a special exception basically.

Yeah. So whatever way he chooses it or whichever way it goes, anytime you amend a Q condition, it has to come before ZAC. So whether you're removing or adding, you still have to go through ZAC and then you go to special exception. So but it's already been to ZAC ZBA. Yeah. Ultimately the council would have to approve it. Yeah. Yeah. It would go to ZAC PNZ city council just like a normal zoning case. You guys are confusing us. Sorry. Sorry. I apologize for that. But yeah, just like this is just like any other zoning case.

You know, somebody wants to admit a Q condition, they go to ZAC, get a recommendation, come to PNZ for a recommendation. Ultimately, the city council is going to make the final decision. But what you guys were telling us earlier was that the zoning board of adjustments would have to that would be a subsequent action. Okay. Currently, trade school is not an allowed use at this site. The only way to allow that to happen is to amend this queue through the council. If the council amends the queue to allow for trade school, then it would be a permitted use provided he has approval by the zoning board for a special exemption.

Yeah. I mean, I'd be more comfortable considering that versus just stripping all the conditions. So, I think uh can we uh walk them through that process of just making that adjustment? And I think we can probably because we'll get feedback here, but we probably moved it on. But um so let me just ask this. So trade school is not one of the options listed in the prevented by right. Correct. It's not permitted by right. permitted as a special exception in C2. Right. But can the council grant a special exception? No.

Right. So all you're doing is adding if you would be either removing all Q's. We have to address or adding that use to the Q list as an allowed use. Yeah. But it still would have subsequently What I'm asking you is is what Q condition category would we add at this point because Yeah. It says permitted by right. Is that that's what's is that what's throwing you off? No, because you keep telling me it's

Yes. Yeah. So permitted by right. That's what I'm trying to get to. Which one of those of the 41 options that are listed would we need to allow?

So if you flip the page uh you know you see the list there permitted by right these are the uses that are not allowed. You flip the page you see permitted as accessory permitted with conditions and then you see permitted by special exception. And number three on that list is trade school. Yeah, just if you flip the page there, you'll you'll notice that the list that you referenced, you know, where you see you see permitted by right. Those are the three uses that are allowed by right and then you see those that have been queued out essentially.

And then you flip the page, you'll see permitted accessory, permitted with conditions, and then you see permitted by special exception with condition. And number three listed is school trade school. Okay. So, right. So, we're not granting the special exception.

Correct. We're we would just be saying that the council would rec or would allow the use of the property as a trade school and then it would be up to the ZBA to decide whether or not that special exception was actually going to be granted. That's correct. All right, I think we're clear now. Everybody follow that? Yes, sir. Yeah. So, I mean, are we good to Does he need to amend that first or can we go ahead and do this and y'all handle the paper?

Well, that's a good question. I think um I mean I think and maybe I'm wrong, but I think that you can make that recommendation today. We can clarify that with OCA and see how we need to proceed.

So, Mr. I I don't know if you're following this conversation, but your request uh for reszoning is to essentially drop all of the Q conditions. So, currently the the property um is what we call queued out. Um which means that there's only certain uses allowed amongst the 40 plus that would otherwise be allowed. So those um uses that are permitted currently are restaurant, motel or truck stop. And then you know there's a whole bunch of other uses that um that are not allowed under the Q conditions. So, um, you know, some of the ones that if we just drop all of the Q conditions, um, you know, there's some that, you know, are are typical problems for the neighborhood like clubs and um, I don't know, you know, other things. uh personal care services whatever. So, you know, I think the recommendation from coming from us is that you amend your request to rather than dropping all of the Q conditions, amend the request to add a Q for trade school. Does that make sense?

Can I Well, I guess from my point of view, can we just pull his application and handle that before he leaves so we're not running him through the ringer again and again? Yeah. I'm I'm I'm basically asking you, Mr. Armor, for if you understand what what's the situation and if you would consent to changing your request. Absolutely. Because it sounds like that's what it looks like Sipco Neighborhood and Proritider are both getting exactly what they wanted in the first place because I know they didn't want all the Q considerations, you know, uh done away with, right?

And I don't I definitely like once proriter has moved on to bigger and better things, I don't want anybody just anybody to be able to come into the neighborhood and do whatever they want. So, I asked this in the very beginning, but I was instructed that this is absolutely the way it had to go in order for it to get done. So, if all we have to do is amend that, I'm all for it. Absolutely.

Okay. So, now my question to staff is what based on what you've just heard, is that sufficient for us to I think that's what I had mentioned. I think that it'd be best to consult with OCA, our city attorney office. Um, they're not here. Um, so, you know, I think it would be best to to hear from them. All right. Um,

so I'm going to motion that we table this issue, try and get somebody from OCA down here, um, to give us their viewpoint. So, can I get a second on the table? All in favor say I. I. All right. So, that's we're going to lay that on the table and we're going to move on to our next uh request. Okay. So, next case is ZAC 20250024.

All right. Thank you. So, once again, Christian Togmas and I serve as one of the planners for the city of Birmingham. So, this case is located within the Huffman neighborhood. The applicant and the owner are both Robuck Plaza Baseline LLC and they're seeking to reszone the property from MUM, which is our mixeduse medium district to C2, again, which is our general commercial district in order to allow for a vehicle rental company enterprise rental car within an existing tenant space. So, this property is approximately 4.97 acres in size and is located at 220 and 226 Gadston Highway, which is just right near the intersection of Gadston and Robuck Parkway. Um, the surrounding properties to the north, south, and the west are zoned MUM, and to the east is zone D2, single family district. So, there are proposed use as a vehicle rental company, uh, enterprise rental car. The site will include customer service space, a small wash bay or prep area for cleaning and late maintenance, meaning oil checks, refueling, and vacuuming. Uh the estimated number of employees will be five, and the number of vehicles varies, but we'll approximately have at least 15 to 20 vehicles at any given time. The proposed hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, 9:00 a.m. through 12:00 p.m., and they are closed on Sundays. The adopted long range land use plan identifies this property as mixed use high. So I'm going to go through all the staff comments now. So for zoning, the property must be reserveveyed into one lot through the city's subdivision process. There are no comments from Birmingham department of transportation, the landscape or storm water. Uh the property is not located within a special flood hazard area. The applicant went before the Huffman Neighborhood Association on September 22nd and they voted to support the resoning request with 18 votes to support, zero votes to

not support. The item was heard at the zoning advisory committee on the October 21st meeting and they voted to recommend the item to planning and zoning. Four votes to approve, zero votes to deny. And that's the end of that um case. Okay. Uh, is the applicant present? Yes. All right. All right. So, you heard the summary. Any additional information you'd like to add? Okay.

So, um, Mr. Togmas, it's currently zoned mixeduse medium. I assume that rent car rental facility is not allowed under mixeduse rental. That's why we would need to go to C2. Correct. Okay. Uh in the packet you have the C2 uses that would be permitted by right. So that is a list of 41 items. Um, the neighborhood association didn't um propose any Q conditions. EAC didn't propose any Q conditions.

No.

Okay. Tell me more about the um the car washing facility. So yeah, there it's part of the plan, right? Okay. Um, so all of these other businesses are on this parcel, right? They are. So it's all one. So this this lot has multiple or this parcel has multiple lots on it.

Okay. So is the subject property on an individual parcel? No. Okay. And I assume this company is also leasing this space. So I mean again, do you have a letter from the property owner consenting to the change? We do. Okay. Got it. All right. Which which space are they physically going in? Is it one space or multiple?

Is it is it a far end or in the middle?

It's the second unit from the corner. So, Yeah. And I assume that um a portion of the parking area located in front of the building would be used for rental car storage as well. Okay.

Right. Okay. Any other questions? Councelor Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, basically, um, you're not doing it's not a full-fledged car wash. It's just like a maybe like a bay area where you guys when people bringing rentals back, they getting them ready for the next rental, like cleaning them out, getting them ready for the next rental. to like a bay like a bay area where they just drive the cars through the bay. Okay.

So, just basically turning the cars over when they returned in from a renter. Okay. Which what use does this fall under? So, it's kind of a weird one. It falls under automobile sales. So, our automobile sales definition has a section about vehicle rentals in it. Okay. Um, I feel like this likely needs some Q conditions.

Yeah. And and the committee can the committee can um, you know, add those to our recommendation. staff. As I'm looking through the difference in uses between MUM and C2, I only see a handful of differences. uh to state them out loud would be number 11

hospital number 18 donation center number 20 electronics repair 31 recreation equipment 34 shopping center 36 printing and publishing 37 studio radio TV does that look right to y'all does that look right to y'all yeah that's the C2 That's the allowed uses. Yeah, those are the only differences between MUM and C2 based on what I'm I'm seeing. Just wanted to con confirm that. Yeah, just a couple

cues. Um, would would the permitted as an accessory or permitted with conditions? Can those also be uh cued as well? Yeah. Yeah, we need to queue them or they don't have to come back to council,

right? Okay. I think we can cue what we see now, but in between now and um full counsel if we need to add something, I think we probably could as well, but I know like out of permitted with conditions like payday loan, title loan, P. Uh I want to cue that out. Um yeah, but like I said, could be some additional in addition to what councelor Bosa mentioned. So good to have some fresh eyes up here that can pick those up real quick.

Mr. Gimbro. Yeah, I was just going to mention that um we would need to know the full Q list and have that recommendation prior to scheduling any public hearing with council. Once the public hearing scheduled, you know, we kind of have to live with those cues. If we want to amend those, we have to revertise the case, bring it back to council,

right? Um ideally, you know, we would have those cues, you know, today with a recommendation. I was under the impression that uh the city was no longer giving business licenses for payday loans. Um you know we had a moratorum on check cashing and payday loan um businesses prior to my arrival on the council. Um I didn't know if that was made permanent at some point. I don't know where that stands to be honest with you. I'd have to seek some other opinions. Okay.

There I know there was an opinion or a moratorum at one time. Yeah. Um I mean just based on my prior experience moratorum is not you know permanent and right that's temporary. We did make some policy changes at that time to the ordinance I think that did include some distance requirements and things like that. Okay. that. So, it's not necessarily that we're not granting business licenses for those uses. They have to meet the policy and the zoning ordinance and new locations. That may be challenging. I wonder where we put them. In hell, probably. Right.

Okay. All right. Let's uh um do do y'all want to uh capture these Q conditions or you want us to you have some cute conditions you want to add? Yeah. Just go through start going through the list.

We'll start with um the permitted by right uses under C2. Uh we'll go with number 11 hospital 18 uh donation center 31 recreation equipment sales and services. Uh permitted as accessory to another principal use uh internment and we can try that. Uh then permitted with conditions uh Uh, adult care and child care. One and two. Three, family day night care home. Four, family group day night care home. Uh, 27 payday loan, 28 title loan. Uh 32 garden community garden. There's more on the next page. Uh 36 recycling collection center. Uh 37 adult establishment. That's what Huffman would want. Huffman want. Uh and then permitted by special exception with conditions uh one, two,

six. 7 11 just for clarity. Council Woods, these are the uses that you would like to remove, correct? Q out. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You guys got all that? Okay. All right. So, I move

Are you okay with that? You don't need a chicken coop on your right. All right. I got you. All right. All right. So, I move we uh send this to full council recommendation to approve uh with consideration for the listed Q conditions. All right, I'll second that. Um ready for the vote. All in favor say I. I. I. Um that motion is approved. So that will be sent to the full council. Thank you. Um are we ready to go back to Case number 16. Yes.

Okay. So, motion to take up GAC 2025-16 U for consideration. Second.

All in favor say I. I. All right. Okay. So, now that's back before us. Um, we are requesting uh an opinion from OCA uh regarding whether or not um the applicant being present and consenting to a change in the request. Um the his request uh as he applied for was a simple dropping of all of the Q conditions. Um based on our discussion here, um we recommended to the the applicant that he rather than dropping all of the Q conditions simply add a Q condition that would allow for uh trade school use. So our question was is the applicant being present cons and and consenting to a change in his application. Uh essentially is that sufficient for us to proceed to a consideration or does the applicant need to start over again? Go ahead.

Yeah, we discussed it in hallway. Um, and you know, the ZAC recommendation is just a recommendation. You can accept that or not. Um, and so it's just like the case we just previously had. We emitted the Q condition as part of this discussion. And I think it would be similar in this case that we could amend the cues um so rather than considering what the applicant has requested to remove all the cues, we simply just say we're not going to do that. We would add add the use as a trade school. Right. That's what I'm indicating.

That that's is that kosher with OCA? I have uh this was sprung on me so I have not uh officially researched but we're only about 20 minutes ahead of you. Yeah. And I and I can you know do I mean did y'all delay or what? Well, we we tabled it while we were you know waiting to hear back whether or not we could simply proceed as I just described. Okay. So, are you gonna take it up later at this meeting? Yeah, I mean we're considering it right now.

Okay. Oh, we are we are reconsidering it right now. Okay. Well, I was going to say if I can have a few minutes because that's what I was doing back there was pulling up um Weslaw to take a quick look at something. But I mean my understanding is that zoning just requires a recommendation from the planning commission or in our case it's the zoning advisory committee of the planning commission that makes the recommendation. the council makes the final decision and you know this committee is just reporting out to council um as to what right

you your opinion of ZC's recommendation and what the uh after you hear from the owner and anybody else you want to hear from what what that recommendation to the council is you know the council makes the final decision so you know I Well, we as been mentioned, we've made changes um at this stage to add Q conditions and do anything. Um the only thing that we know clearly is um Mr. Gambrell stated is once we advertise for the public hearing for the council, if we make any changes to what was advertised, we have to go back to readvertise. Um, if it's been, we do know from some litigation we had, if it's been over two years since that recommendation from ZAC or the planning commission, we would definitely have to go back to the beginning. So, but I don't think in this case that it has to go back to the beginning. It's you've received the recommendation. It's your job to pass on to the council,

right? You know, a recommendation from this committee. So basically, so if if we were to vote on it at at this point, um it would move forward to the council with a re recommendation for the from the committee for the request

and the request up to this point has been to remove all the Q conditions. So, you know, based on the previous conversation, our, you know, with the path that we're going down is rather than removing all of the Q conditions, we would simply add a Q that allows for the use of the property as a trade school,

right? So, um, but you know, so my I guess my preference is is that rather than it moving forward to the council as a request to remove all of the QE conditions with a recommendation from the planning and zoning committee to not allow removal of all of the conditions, but simply add the use as a trade school.

That seems a lot more confusing than simply saying we're going to change the request to add the Q condition for use as a trade school. Yeah. Either way, I think we can p proceed. I'm just asking can the requests move forward with being changed or does that cause a problem in our code when would ZAC then need to reconsider it? Um I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, again, I don't think necessarily that ZAC would have to reconsider it, but part of the question gets to be, do you advertise what he requests or do you advertise what the committee recommends? And that's where the question comes about. Like you said, it can be messy. Um, but I would like to consider it a minute. Okay. So, now that I know what the question is, you got 60 seconds.

Okay. Let me set my timer. Yeah. All right. So, Okay. So, we're going to give you a few minutes because we got some other agenda items. Um, so again, motion to table ZAC-2025-16. Second. All in favor say I.

I. All right, that items tabled. So, next up we have um item number four, framework plan reszoning cases. Um our first um case here is ZAC 2025-11, the north side framework plan resoning. Okay. Yep. Hi, I'm Jess Maize and I serve as a senior planner in the department of planning, engineering, and permits. Um, I am the senior planner for the North Side Southside area. Um, we first brought the North Side Southside framework resoning plan to PNZ on October 8th and the committee voted to recommend approval of the North Side Southside plan based on the following two conditions. Um, so we were asked to change the zoning for several properties around Idle Wild Circle. Um, and I have photos of them in this document for y'all, but those first four properties on Idle Wild have been changed to D3 single family. We previously had them as D5 multif family. And then on that second page, the next six properties have also been changed to D3 single family from D5 multif family. And then the second condition was that planning staff is going to work on an amendment to the D5 multifamily zoning district to only allow it to be 35 ft. Um so our team is currently working on that. And then in addition to those changes that PNZ asked for, um if you go to the third page, we have four changes that we found as we were going through the map. Um 667 Ottawa

Wild Circle was included in the P&Z request, but it's a small multiplex, so it would need to remain D5 or it'll become legal non-conforming. And then 3020 12th Avenue North. We had proposed it to go to mixeduse medium, but it is a convenience store and it was reszoned in 2021 to QC2. Um, we no longer allow convenience stores and mixeduse medium. So, if we were to leave it as mixeduse medium, it would also be legal non-conforming. And then across the street from 3020 12th Avenue North in Norwood, um 3100 12th Avenue North and 3009 12th Avenue North are also convenient stores. So since we are making that change for the first one, we also changed those two to C2. So they're not legal non-conforming. And then we'll flip again. Um, we've also gone through the Q conditions for North Side, Southside. Um, we are keeping the Q conditions that are currently on properties, but as we've been investigating, there are some Q conditions that we feel comfortable um, recommending removal of. That first one is for 1324 32nd Street North. Um, that was QR. It had been reszoned and acute condition placed on it for a child care facility, but when we looked into it, um there's been no ZCO for a child care facility in over 25 years. So, we would like to recommend it go back to D3 single family zoning because that's what is all around it. Um the second one is 211819th Terrace North. That was reszoned to QR. Um, but when we looked into it, it's currently a vacant lot. So, we would

like to recommend that it just changed to urban neighborhood with no cues. Then 150127th Street North was reszoned to Q and I. Um, but we also looked into it. It's also vacant, so we would like to just recommend that it be changed to urban neighborhood. 1925 15th Avenue South, 1941 16th Avenue South, 1934 16th Avenue South, 1942 16th Avenue South, and 1600 Richard Arrington Boulevard where we zone back in the late 80s to QB2. Um, whoever has bought the property since then has actually demoed all of that. It was a medical office. Um, so we are recommending removal of those key conditions and those properties just be changed to mixeduse medium.

Are all of those properties adjoining properties for that last one? No, they're not. Um, several of them are adjoining and they're right off Richard Arrington, but then one is like in between an office building and then I think another one is like separated by a parking lot. Okay. You don't have a map of these, do you? Um, I do not. I just have um little screenshots. Okay. Yeah. All right. Keep going. Um, that was it for North Side, Southside.

Okay. So the the remind me um the committee this the the north side southside framework resoning plans came before the committee previously on October 8th right and I can't remember did we vote on a recommendation at that time

um I was in Europe at that time but based on the the notes that I saw um PNZ recommended those two conditions um recommended approval with those two conditions and those were changing of the Ottawa circle properties and that we are committing to changing the height in the D5 multif family district to 35 ft. Okay. So yeah, I remember the discussion around the Ottawa circle um I believe that's district three um and thanks. So I I guess it's the other other uh changes that are kind of throwing me off. So these

Yes. And those are new changes, right? Um like Julie was saying with the Q conditions, once we advertise this for council, it has to be advertised exactly how it is. And so that's why we wanted to recommend removal of these Q conditions so that we can advertise it without them. Okay. So, it's being brought before us again today because there's all of these changes that are being proposed. So, we need to vote again. Yes.

Yep. Gotcha. Everybody clear on where we are? All right. Yeah, I mean based on the public feedback that we received, it was really the ID Wild Circle issue properties that were causing some heartburn in the community. Um, and it looks like that's been addressed. Yes. Yep. Yeah. Just to second that. Looks like um the the movement from the out Wild Circle properties from D5 to D3 would be welcomed in the community. So, thank you, Jess. All right. You got a motion to go with that comment?

Okay. Second. Second. All right. Um all in favor say I. I.

All right. Uh so we've dealt with that. Next um case is the AC 2025-5. This is the Eastern area framework plan resoning. Okay, Jess Maze again. I am a senior planner with the department of planning, engineering, and permits. Um, do y'all have this list of cues for Eastern area? Okay, perfect. Um, this is Tim's area, but I'm going to quickly go through these cues today. Um, for Airport Hills, they only have one Q condition. We are recommending removal of that existing Q condition because the lot is currently vacant. So, it would just revert back to D3 single family. Moving on to East Birmingham for 3645 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard. It was QB2, but when we looked at the property, it's already in an existing industrial area and there's no residential around it. So, it doesn't necessitate a buffer. So, we were recommending removal of that Q condition for the buffer. 3811 39th Court North was QB1. Um we're recommending removal of that key condition due to the property no longer being used as a child care center. It is just a single family home now. So it would revert back to D3. 93744th Street North was reszoned to QB1 and we're recommending removal of that Q condition because the lot is currently vacant. So it would just revert to urban neighborhood for 4340 Vanderbilt Road. It was reszoned to QB2 and we are recommending removal of that second Q condition where it was requesting a buffer adjacent to the

residence. Um this resoning case was done back in 1996 and there's no longer a residence next to the property. So that Q condition wouldn't be necessary anymore. For 3319 38th Place North, it was reszoned to QR4. Um it was reszone to allow communal living facility, but we already allow those in D4 by special exception anyway. So we would like to request that this one just go back to D4. 4325 Eagle Nook Street was reszoned to QB2. We're recommending removal of that Q condition because the lot is no longer being used as an auto sales lot. When we looked into it, it is just a single family home. So, it would go back to just D3. 3805 36 Avenue North and 3315 Vanderbilt Road were reszoned to QB2. We're recommending removal of those Q conditions because both of those lots are currently vacant. So they would just revert back to C2. 4308 42nd Street North was reszoned to QR. We are requesting removal of that existing Q condition because the building is um currently empty and it does look like it potentially was an old school. So it would revert back to D3. 380943rd Avenue North was reszoned to QB2 and we're requesting the removal of that Q condition because that lot is currently vacant. So, it would revert back to C2. 5100 East Lake Boulevard was reszoned to QB2. We're recommending removal of that existing Q condition um because whatever it was reszoned for didn't end up being

built and it's actually the site of the ABC state liquor warehouse um that technically is illegally operating because of the Q condition. So, we were just recommending removal of that and it would change to I1 light industrial and then the ABC warehouse would not be legal non-conforming. 4301 Gadston Street was reszoned to QB2 and we are recommending to remove that Q condition because the building is unoccupied. So, it would just revert back to C2. 98146th Street North was reszoned to QB1 and we're recommending removal of that Q condition because the lot is currently vacant. So it would just revert back to C1. 3310 38th Place North was reszoned to QB1 and we're also recommending removal of it because the lot's currently vacant. So it would revert to C2. In the East Lake community, 6517 1st Avenue North was reszoned to QB2. And we're recommending removal of that existing Q condition because our zoning ordinance now requires a landscape buffer anyway. So that Q condition wouldn't be necessary anymore and it would just be C2. 6600 1st Avenue North was reszoned to QB2. We're recommending removal of that Q condition because the Q conditions were very specific for an autozone um part store and that auto zone has since moved and the building's vacant. So it would just revert back to C2. 7806 1st Avenue North was reszoned to QB2 and we're recommending removal of that Q condition because the

pre-existing apartments are still on the property. It looks like that case was where an applicant was going to do something with those apartments, maybe demo and build something else, but that never happened. So, the same apartments are still on there. Um, so that would just go to mixuse medium. 8510 Fifth Avenue North was reszoned to QR4A. We're recommending removal of that Q condition because the property is just a single family home. So, it would go to D3. And in the Woodlong community for 6400 Georgia Road, we're recommending removal of that cute condition because the lot is vacant. So it would change to just urban neighborhood and 4901st Avenue North was reszoned to QM1. We are recommending removal of that because it's also a vacant lot and it would just revert to mixeduse medium. And those are our changes for the eastern area. Um just a comment again. It would be really helpful for us to have um you know some sort of map because zoning is all about you know what's around it. um really, you know, and making sure that the property is appropriately zoned based on basically its context of where it's located and what's in proximity to it. So,

Eastern area, um you have all the maps for Eastern, we have PBS, but since we don't have any ink for the printers, we couldn't print out any maps. Oh, okay. Sorry. Donald was saying we don't have any ink for the map printers, so that's why we don't have large maps. Okay. Yeah. So, um I guess it would be it would be helpful u if it's that information is included in the packet when this goes to the council. Um

yes. So, when this goes to council, we're required by law to have black and white maps that denote the Q conditions on them. So, we'll have that with the advertisement and then we'll also have the large color maps for the audience and y'all. Okay, good. Thank you. Um, so it sounds like a lot of this is sort of I mean some of it at least is cleaning up some spot zoning. Um, so

yeah, a lot of it um especially for Eastern area is someone just reszone and then they never ended up doing what they wanted to do. So the lot's just sitting there vacant. So, um, if we clean it up, then the next person can come and actually do something with it instead of having to come back and amend the Q conditions. Yeah.

So, on a lot of these, uh, you don't have you also don't have the current zoning listed. you just have, you know, what what is being recommended to

um I know on that first one for Airport Hills, um I don't have the address. We're having to pull the original ordinance to get it, but for most of them, it'll say like 3645 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard was QB2. So that was is what it's currently zoned. And then when we change it, it'll go to whatever is on the left hand column. Okay. Yeah, I see now. So, yeah, let me ask about this. So, let's just take that one as an example. 3645 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard was qualified business district 2. You're recommending that it be reszoned to

I1. I1. Okay. So, was that I1 part of the framework planning reszoning and you're simply suggesting that we remove the Q condition that's associated with that property?

Yes. So, when we looked at this one, um it looks like it was probably um somewhat spot zone um because it is around like an industrial area. I guess what I'm asking is is that you know in the public uh engagement process um what the proposed reasonzoning is to go from QB2 to I1 people you know who have seen this resoning plan have seen that the only thing that you're suggesting is that we additionally remove the Q conditions associated with the property.

So no, prior to this, we would have shown this property as QB2 because that's what it was zoned. So now that we're recommending removal of the Q condition and changing it to I1, that would have to be notated in a new map.

Donald, I'm seeing you say indicate something different. Uh yes, I was about to say that the um zoning changes that we have proposed that they were publicly shown. What we are doing is just removing the cues conditions that were tied to those properties. So that for example um if a property we had was originally on our map shown as Q I1 and we are sort of removing the Q conditions that were tied to that property then it would just become I1

right um thank you Donald this has not been shown to the eastern area community as I would have been shown as QB2 because we looked it over last week and decided to remove the conditions.

Okay. Well, that's a significant change. Um, you know, and the public input process has, you know, these all of these changes when and there's a significant number of them. Um, you know, the the public hasn't had a chance to to weigh in on this. So, I mean, had how do we get to the planning and zoning committee, you know, without any recommendation to change these key conditions from, you know, neighborhood association ZAC? I mean, that's a good question. Like ZAC, was there a consideration to bring it to ZAC before it came to planning and zoning? I will say um for all of these addresses like we didn't have any concerns from the residents um but if we were to reach back out then we could engage with the eastern area community again and just walk them through these changes and then instead of ZAC we would probably just take it back to the planning commission.

Okay. Because you know what I'm looking at is you got a change from um R well R3 to D3 makes sense. uh QB2 to I1 uh QB1 to D3 QB1 to urban neighborhood and so on so forth. So these are significant changes. Um, yeah, council was.

Yeah. Can you I guess talk about I get removing the queue conditions. Why wouldn't we just let it revert back to its existing zoning versus we're kind of removing the queue and changing the zoning in one swoop? So for some of them um like QR4A that zoning district is just completely going away. Um the most equivalent we would have to that would either be D4 or urban neighborhood. Um for the 3645 Richard Arrington um everything around it is already zoned M1 like manufacturing. So that's why we just went ahead and changed it to the I1.

So let me uh reframe the question. Why wouldn't you simply request to remove the Q condition for the prop proposed reszoning that's been presented to the public up to this point rather than changing the proposed resoning? because that's what I'm hearing is is that the public has been presented with a reasonzoning plan that is different than what you're asking us to make a recommendation on today.

So, y'all could just revert it back to what the original zoning district was with the queue. Um, in that case, everything around it was M1 light manufacturing. So that's why as a team we decided to change it. But if y'all wanted to, y'all could just change it from QB2, which is general business, to C2, general commercial, and then that would be the change in name only.

Yeah. So I guess you know what I'm saying is is that you know there's been a very intensive process up to this point to identify you know each parcel for potential zoning changes and we have had that you know map before us and the public engagement has been focused on that. So I don't think you know it doesn't seem kosher to me to even though you know there are thousands and thousands of parcels in this you know uh eastern area you know still these this is a significant change from what's been proposed in the framework resoning plan. So, what I would suggest is that we stick with what the proposed zoning has been up to this point and presented to the public and simply remove the Q conditions but not change the proposed zoning. Does that make sense? Um, it does. The only one where that will be an issue is that QR4A and yes, so 8 8510 Fth Avenue North was QRAA and QR4A is like a medium density residential district. It allowed for duplexes. Um, we were recommending that it just go back to D3 because everything

around it was single family. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah.

You good? So what you're saying is on 4308 42nd Street or which is that the proper address that you're wanting to 8510 Fth Avenue North. It was DAC 2007-0000180. It was reszoned in QR4A and the Q conditions were uses limited to a single family dwelling or three family dwelling triplex. So when we looked at the actual structure, it is just a single family home. So that's why we were just recommending to remove the queue and just make it D3 single family.

Right. Gotcha. There's another one in here though. That's 3805 36th Avenue North and 3515 Vanderbilt Road. No, I'm sorry. 430842nd Street North was QR. And you're recommending that it go to D3?

Yes. Um, so for that one, it looked like it was an old school or like an old church, but it's also surrounded by D3, so that's why we were recommending it go to D3. Um, we're also working on an adaptive reuse ordinance, and we thought this property might be a good opportunity for someone. The adaptive reuse is going to allow you if something is zone D3 single family, if you are doing like um a community benefit type thing, then you would be able to do that in the space without having to reszone. But with what you're suggesting, um since this was QR, the equivalent to R5 would be D5. So we would just change this to D5, but remove the Q. What's the most up-to-date ordinance date the 1015 20 24 or is there one more recent? Um, the most up to date is from February 2025 on the website.

Yeah. I mean, I don't like the ones that are reverting to effectively the same zoning are fairly straightforward, but the ones where you're changing the zoning, it's just really not the appropriate uh process to change the zoning. Um, so would y'all like us just to go back to the eastern area and show them these changes? Like have another community meeting? You could you could do that with all of them or you could just

No, to all of them. Um, I would rather us just go back to the eastern area community with all of them than um like revert them back to what they were because like some of them were spot zoned so like it makes sense to change them. So, if we're going to go back to the community for some of them, we can just take them all back to the community. If you're willing to do that, then I think that would make me feel more comfortable um you know, going with the proposed Z uh zoning that staff is recommending. Um, so

and um would y'all also want us to like go back to the planning commission as well or we could go back to the community and then come back to P&Z. I mean, I think it's just more of like a context and so like we're getting a little bit of u I guess on the fly around I understand the Q conditions not being needed uh but specifically where you're jumping from a to a completely different uh zoning classification having all the context around why it's probably uh

so council woods you Um, I don't necessar I don't necessarily have a strong opinion about whether or not it should go to planning commission, but I do I would like, you know, the public at large community who's been involved in this process thus far um to be made aware of the proposed changes and to have an opportunity to provide some feedback. Um because for example, you know, with the 4308 42nd Street North, um there's a big difference between D5 and D3. Um and you know, I would just, you know, want the community's sort of insight on to how they feel about that situation. So, um,

yeah, we can commit to going back to Eastern area. Um, would but would you want us to go back to planning commission or y'all are okay if we go back to Eastern area, get their thoughts, have them vote, and then just come back to y'all?

Yeah, I mean, to me, that's more of a legal question. you know, um the planning commission has reviewed this framework plan resoning and made a recommendation um these changes would significantly alter that. So, um, you know, based on my non-legal, you know, qualifications, um, it would seem that, you know, they would need to have the opportunity to at least update their recommendation. Well, I think that's going to present probably a little bit of a challenge because, you know, to notify the entire community um

a public hearing of a public hearing, you know, is a significant cost. Um I wonder if it's interesting you point out 4308 42nd Street North. Uh this was owned QR. It did have these Q conditions on it that limit it for the specific use that it used. I believe it's an educational use. The site is an old I believe it's an old school. It's in the middle of Englewood neighborhood surrounded by single family houses. Uh so for us to leave it as R5 without the cues for us is kind of challenging because the build the school building itself doesn't lend itself to that use. It would have to be demoed probably and then it would be a multif family use in the middle of the single family neighborhood.

Right. And so for us I mean it's a vacant nobody's using the site. Um, it's been derelic for some time. I'm sure the building's deteriorating to a certain degree. Uh, so for us, it made a lot of sense to bring that one down to D3. Yeah. Um, I'm not I'm not suggesting that what you guys are proposing doesn't make understood. And I think it kind of goes back to what we were saying earlier, too. You know, there's the planning commission made a recommendation. You know, we're kind of furthering that conversation with you, you know. Sure. And making some refinements. Sure. I think and that's that's why we presented to you this way so that we could be above board and in public about what we're doing, right?

Um and so um I mean I understand your concern at the same time. Um but I think you know I guess what I'm saying is you know that we need if we do go we could go back to the neighborhood. I would think uh we we can do that expeditiously fairly quickly. You know we were hoping to get this on planning commission by the end of February or city council end of February to actually adopt it. Um, so you know, we've been working on this for a while, quite a while. And, you know, I mean, I'm not, you know, saying that we shouldn't delay, but it would cause a delay. And I guess that's understandable. Um Um, so, and I I wonder too of these changes that we're showing here from use, are these are all of these uses that are in the lefth hand category not on the map when we submitted to ZAC? or planning commission.

No, they weren't. It was just showing what it was reszoned to. So like the QR would have shown QD5 previously. Yeah. Right. But so like for example, I see one here that's going from B1 to I1. Was our original recommendation I1 on that site? No, it would have been the B1, whatever it is now. And so that's what I'm thinking that what you're seeing. I think this may be a little deceptive that this says B1 to I1 and but that's not a change that's being made today. That's a change that was presented to the planning commission. I don't think so. You don't think so? But he does.

I mean I we went through these last week and made these recommendations. So obviously we we need to I think what we need to do is make a better presentation to you about this. Yeah, that would be great. a subsequent meeting with photographs with a bit a little bit better detail than just this table. Motion to delay this case to a future meeting um whenever planning staff is and and if if well and Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah. where you changing too the context like you just kind of gave around uh this being old school that you tore down like the context around every address because you just give me address like I don't know the history of exactly why they did that

when you're looking at this black and white document it's kind of hard to know why we made this decision aside from just what somebody might say right and so you have some photographic evidence you have a little more detail and that'll help you see the logic right second a good counselor's motion all in favor say I All right. All right. So, that one's been delayed. Um, next, and apologies to Mr. Mock who's been waiting. Uh, we have, uh, item number five, uh, update on appointments, uh, and reappointments. So, um, first up is the design review committee. Yeah.

Hello.

My name is Lauren Hard. I serve as urban design administrator in planning, engineering, and permits. Um, current, well, let me take a step back. The design review committee has 11 members. We've had three that have resigned recently, so we only have eight. Um, and so we are looking to fill those three spots. Two of the spots are for a registered architect. The third is for a member at large. Um over the past couple of months, kind of early late summer, early fall, um Councelor Abbott had um done her due diligence with advertising those positions at meetings. We had received five total resumes. The design review committee voted amongst themselves and voted to recommend three of those to PNZ to fill those spots. And so I think you guys have that information. You should have those all of those resumes.

Um and so we're just looking to move forward because we if two people, you know, we have to have six to have a quorum. So we're running really kind of tight with all of our uh our meetings lately.

Right. So, um, we, the design review committee has recommended Britney Foley and Cindy Coyle as, um, as our two registered architects. They both have a background in historic preservation, which is awesome, um, and and much needed on the committee. And then, um, we they had also recommended Gina Malisham as our member at large. So, these these are unexpired terms. So with filling uh you know voting on the recommendation um these would there the terms of these new appointments would expire July of 2027.

Okay. That's correct. So they they would well one of them will expire in July of this of 26. Oh yeah. So she would have to be reappointed this summer along with two or three other position. You know, they a third expire each year. Got it. All right. Mr. Monk, would you Yeah. Yeah. So, you just want to confirm that the DRC is reviewed these applicants and that is the committee's recommendation.

Yes. Yes. Councelor Quinn. First of all, uh congratulations uh Councilman Vesa and Councelor Wood and Councelor Quinn uh for being reelected. Uh we we're very happy that you are here. Um one thing that uh she forgot to say is that under the ordinance, the design review committee itself has the authority to recommend the uh appointees to you. So we would appreciate you. though we were vet these candidates were vetted and we are really excited to have them on board and keep in mind we have to have one architect to have a quorum along with the with five others. So we have to have six that includes an architect and we almost didn't make it last month. We came very close in not having a quorum and we had like 12 applicants there waiting to be approved. Uh so it it's getting tight and we would really really love for y'all to try to recommend this to the full council so we can do we have we advertised it already?

We have advertised it. So that's all done. We just really would like to have this before the council as soon as possible. Well, I appreciate the committees, you know, reviewing the applicants and making recommendation. That certainly lightens the load for um for us. So, any additional questions, thank you for listening to me. Yep.

There are no additional court questions. You got a question, council? Um I um will make a motion to um recommend the committee's recommendation to appoint um Brittany Foley to replace Willie Oliver, Gina Malasham to replace Doug Hail, and Cindy Coyle to replace Scott Bernett for terms expiring respectively July 30th, 2027. 7 for the first two uh applicants and July 30th, 2026 for uh Cindy Coyle. So, can I get a second?

Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. So, those DRC um we'll move to the appointments will move to the full council. So, now we have planning commission. Thank you. Y who's going to speak on planning commission? Good afternoon. My name is Michael Ward. I serve as principal planner with the city's planning engineering and permits department. And um just want to make sure that everyone has the um current list city clerk's office that shows the current membership of the U. Birmingham Planning Commission. Yep.

Okay. So, let's see. We have two members that terms have expired. Um, and that's u Mr. Steven Shrader. It's on the first page as well as on the second page. Um, Miss Sharon Deep Nelson. And so um they have been um you know you know excellent commissioners you know been attending the meetings um in the planning commission bylaws you have to attend at least 75% of your meetings and so you know they have done so and um and so we asked would it be okay if they can move forward um with um

reappoint re reappointment. Okay. So they're eligible for reappointment. Um they've only served one term. That's correct. Okay. Got you. And uh so do you have u recommendation or otherwise for the seat vacated by councelor Gun?

Uh no no not at the moment. And um we were also hoping that um that that you all will also help with advertising to um kind of get the word out to the public that we do have a um vacant uh planning commission seat. And the qualifications are you have to be of course a city of Birmingham resident as well as um let's see that person cannot be a city of Birmingham employee and that person cannot be um an elected official.

Okay. All right. So, what's before us is um potentially the recommendation to reappoint Steven Shrader for a term expiring when? Let's see. On October the 6th of um of this year, his current term would expire. New term. What would be the new term?

Oh. Let's see. His new term will be um six years from that term. So, it's pretty much six year intervals. So, it'll be October the 6 of um 2031. And that's for him as well as sharing deep notes. Good lord. That is a long sentence. All right.

How would we like to proceed, gentlemen? Uh, I move we reappoint uh Sharon Deep Nelson and Steven Schrader to a term to expire on October 6, 2031. Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. All right. So those u recommended reappointments will move forward to the full council and we will start announcing the vacancy on the planning commission. All right. Thank you so much. All right. I move we take uh ZAC 2025-16 off the table. All right. Second. All in favor say I.

I. I. All right. So ZAC 2025-16 is back before us for the third time. Maybe the last as OCA reached a conclusion.

I think so. I've conferred with staff and everything under you know because they're making sure I understood everything that was going on and looked at some things. And again, as I said before, you know, recommendation of the planning commission or the zoning advisory commission, this also kind of applies to the later discussion that y'all had. It's purely advisory. The council makes all the decisions about zoning and the, you know, that is a public hearing. you know, we want to have things as clear before we get to the council obviously so we can have as, you know, smooth a meeting and hearing as possible and all that, but um but you know, I'm just saying that that's not necessary when changes are made to go back in my opinion to go all the way back to the beginning because that's purely advisory.

Okay. Um so um in this situation, my understanding from staff is that the applicant who is not the property owner but has been given authority from the property owner to seek the reasonzoning for the purpose that he wants has said he is okay with going with what this committee wants to recommend. Um I think that that can be what you go forward that you recommend. and I talked with staff about making sure that the staff report is clear about what happened at this meeting and also that our uh co-chairs in making your report to the council um you know report what happened you know as far as and why you made the recommendation you did. Um again that it's the applicant's application. Um there will be a public hearing. Um and you know things could even change with the council when they hear from the public hearing or you know if other you know requests or recommendations are made that again triggers readvertising but I think that would be yeah a a process that you could follow at this time.

Great. Thank you. Okay. with this case. Now, you may want to talk about different things if circumstances are different, but this is I think usually what we're going to have. Gotcha. All right. I got a motion. All right. Council Woods, I move we add um school trade from the permitted by special exception with conditions category to the allowable uses for this property. I second. All right, motion second. All in favor say I. I. I.

Um, so that will move forward to the council with a recommendation for approval for the addition of school, a trade school, and we'll try and get our fellow counselors up to speed on how this is job critical chairs. You may I want to make it clear that the committee's recommendation is to reject the removal of all the Q conditions and instead to add an additional. So just so that it's very clear what you're doing,

right? And I think that's what councelor Woods implied. Um that rather than removal of all the QE conditions, right, we would add a Q condition allowing the use of a trade school. Yeah. In your legal opinion, was that motion acceptable? I didn't hear you say, but yes, his yes. Yes. I think that I I I just trying to make sure that it's clear on the record what the committee's recommending. Right. So, Gotcha.

All right. Thank you. That finally um brings us to the end of our agenda, business items. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor say I. I. jam.